Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 15 May 2022 21:34:35 +0300 | Subject | Re: [REGRESSION] lxc-stop hang on 5.17.x kernels | From | Daniel Harding <> |
| |
On 5/15/22 11:20, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 04.05.22 08:54, Daniel Harding wrote: >> On 5/3/22 17:14, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> On 5/3/22 08:37, Daniel Harding wrote: >>>> [Resend with a smaller trace] >>>> On 5/3/22 02:14, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>> On 5/2/22 19:49, Daniel Harding wrote: >>>>>> On 5/2/22 20:40, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/2/22 18:00, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 7:59 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 7:36 AM, Daniel Harding wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 16:26, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 7:17 AM, Daniel Harding wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I use lxc-4.0.12 on Gentoo, built with io-uring support >>>>>>>>>>>> (--enable-liburing), targeting liburing-2.1. My kernel >>>>>>>>>>>> config is a >>>>>>>>>>>> very lightly modified version of Fedora's generic kernel >>>>>>>>>>>> config. After >>>>>>>>>>>> moving from the 5.16.x series to the 5.17.x kernel series, I >>>>>>>>>>>> started >>>>>>>>>>>> noticed frequent hangs in lxc-stop. It doesn't happen 100% >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> time, but definitely more than 50% of the time. Bisecting >>>>>>>>>>>> narrowed >>>>>>>>>>>> down the issue to commit >>>>>>>>>>>> aa43477b040251f451db0d844073ac00a8ab66ee: >>>>>>>>>>>> io_uring: poll rework. Testing indicates the problem is still >>>>>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>>>>> in 5.18-rc5. Unfortunately I do not have the expertise with the >>>>>>>>>>>> codebases of either lxc or io-uring to try to debug the problem >>>>>>>>>>>> further on my own, but I can easily apply patches to any of the >>>>>>>>>>>> involved components (lxc, liburing, kernel) and rebuild for >>>>>>>>>>>> testing or >>>>>>>>>>>> validation. I am also happy to provide any further >>>>>>>>>>>> information that >>>>>>>>>>>> would be helpful with reproducing or debugging the problem. >>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a recipe to reproduce the hang? That would make it >>>>>>>>>>> significantly easier to figure out. >>>>>>>>>> I can reproduce it with just the following: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sudo lxc-create --n lxc-test --template download --bdev >>>>>>>>>> dir --dir /var/lib/lxc/lxc-test/rootfs -- -d ubuntu -r bionic >>>>>>>>>> -a amd64 >>>>>>>>>> sudo lxc-start -n lxc-test >>>>>>>>>> sudo lxc-stop -n lxc-test >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The lxc-stop command never exits and the container continues >>>>>>>>>> running. >>>>>>>>>> If that isn't sufficient to reproduce, please let me know. >>>>>>>>> Thanks, that's useful! I'm at a conference this week and hence have >>>>>>>>> limited amount of time to debug, hopefully Pavel has time to >>>>>>>>> take a look >>>>>>>>> at this. >>>>>>>> Didn't manage to reproduce. Can you try, on both the good and bad >>>>>>>> kernel, to do: >>>>>>> Same here, it doesn't reproduce for me >>>>>> OK, sorry it wasn't something simple. >>>>>>> # echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/io_uring/enable >>>>>>>> run lxc-stop >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> # cp /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace ~/iou-trace >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so we can see what's going on? Looking at the source, lxc is just >>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>> plain POLL_ADD, so I'm guessing it's not getting a notification >>>>>>>> when it >>>>>>>> expects to, or it's POLL_REMOVE not doing its job. If we have a >>>>>>>> trace >>>>>>>> from both a working and broken kernel, that might shed some light >>>>>>>> on it. >>>>>> It's late in my timezone, but I'll try to work on getting those >>>>>> traces tomorrow. >>>>> I think I got it, I've attached a trace. >>>>> >>>>> What's interesting is that it issues a multi shot poll but I don't >>>>> see any kind of cancellation, neither cancel requests nor task/ring >>>>> exit. Perhaps have to go look at lxc to see how it's supposed >>>>> to work >>>> Yes, that looks exactly like my bad trace. I've attached good trace >>>> (captured with linux-5.16.19) and a bad trace (captured with >>>> linux-5.17.5). These are the differences I noticed with just a >>>> visual scan: >>>> >>>> * Both traces have three io_uring_submit_sqe calls at the very >>>> beginning, but in the good trace, there are further >>>> io_uring_submit_sqe calls throughout the trace, while in the bad >>>> trace, there are none. >>>> * The good trace uses a mask of c3 for io_uring_task_add much more >>>> often than the bad trace: the bad trace uses a mask of c3 only for >>>> the very last call to io_uring_task_add, but a mask of 41 for the >>>> other calls. >>>> * In the good trace, many of the io_uring_complete calls have a >>>> result of 195, while in the bad trace, they all have a result of 1. >>>> >>>> I don't know whether any of those things are significant or not, but >>>> that's what jumped out at me. >>>> >>>> I have also attached a copy of the script I used to generate the >>>> traces. If there is anything further I can to do help debug, please >>>> let me know. >>> Good observations! thanks for traces. >>> >>> It sounds like multi-shot poll requests were getting downgraded >>> to one-shot, which is a valid behaviour and was so because we >>> didn't fully support some cases. If that's the reason, than >>> the userspace/lxc is misusing the ABI. At least, that's the >>> working hypothesis for now, need to check lxc. >> So, I looked at the lxc source code, and it appears to at least try to >> handle the case of multi-shot being downgraded to one-shot. I don't >> know enough to know if the code is actually correct however: >> >> https://github.com/lxc/lxc/blob/7e37cc96bb94175a8e351025d26cc35dc2d10543/src/lxc/mainloop.c#L165-L189 >> https://github.com/lxc/lxc/blob/7e37cc96bb94175a8e351025d26cc35dc2d10543/src/lxc/mainloop.c#L254 >> https://github.com/lxc/lxc/blob/7e37cc96bb94175a8e351025d26cc35dc2d10543/src/lxc/mainloop.c#L288-L290 > Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Nothing happened here > for round about ten days now afaics; or did the discussion continue > somewhere else. > > From what I gathered from this discussion is seems the root cause might > be in LXC, but it was exposed by kernel change. That makes it sill a > kernel regression that should be fixed; or is there a strong reason why > we should let this one slip?
No, there hasn't been any discussion since the email you replied to. I've done a bit more testing on my end, but without anything conclusive. The one thing I can say is that my testing shows that LXC does correctly handle multi-shot poll requests which were being downgraded to one-shot in 5.16.x kernels, which I think invalidates Pavel's theory. In 5.17.x kernels, those same poll requests are no longer being downgraded to one-shot requests, and thus under 5.17.x LXC is no longer re-arming those poll requests (but also shouldn't need to, according to what is being returned by the kernel). I don't know if this change in kernel behavior is related to the hang, or if it is just a side effect of other io-uring changes that made it into 5.17. Nothing in the LXC's usage of io-uring seems obviously incorrect to me, but I am far from an expert. I also did some work toward creating a simpler reproducer, without success (I was able to get a simple program using io-uring running, but never could get it to hang). ISTM that this is still a kernel regression, unless someone can point out a definite fault in the way LXC is using io-uring.
-- Regards,
Daniel Harding
| |